Bart Stupak still insists that he has 12 votes. He met with the “Stupak Dozen” on Tuesday morning, and he says that his group is solidly opposed to healthcare reform as long as it provides for tax-payer funded abortions. I guess we’ll know Sunday whether or not his group stays true. “Stupak: Health fight has been ‘living hell'” – Jeffrey Young and Bob Cusack (The Hill)

Many people have wondered whether Tim Tebow’s Superbowl Ad really accomplished anything. I know I had my doubts. But apparently those doubts were unfounded. This testimony on a Focus on the Family Website shows that the Ad wasn’t aired in vain:

Michael Gerson writes in today’s Washington Post on the Healthcare Bill making its way through the House: “Those who support the Senate bill are participating in what is effectively the largest expansion of federal involvement in abortion since the Hyde Amendment limited that role in 1976.” Gerson is right on the money in this statement. Nevertheless, there are some who are claiming that the Senate bill doesn’t cover abortions. Ruth Marcus, for instance, argues that abortions will decrease under the Senate Bill and that there isn’t that much difference between the House and Senate bills. But here’s a question she cannot answer with credibility. If there isn’t very much difference,…

It looks like the House of Representatives may try to pass healthcare reform (with tax-payer funded abortions) without actually voting on it (read about it here). It would involve a parliamentary procedure that stinks to high heaven. Albert Mohler calls it “unbelievable political cowardice,” and I couldn’t agree more.